SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the is-marijuana-shipped-in-reefers? dept.
As reported by CNBC, on Oct. 27, ETF Managers Group filed for a new ETF, the Alternative Agroscience ETF. This ETF will mimic an index as closely as possible that tracks cannabis cultivators, producers and distributors, cannabinoid drugmakers, fertilizer producers, and tobacco companies.
But there's an interesting catch behind its "inception." The Alternative Agroscience ETF won't really be a new ETF at all. ETF Managers Group is switching the focus and tracking index of an existing ETF, the Tierra XP Latin America Real Estate ETF (NYSEMKT: LARE), which tracks the Solactive benchmark of real estate in Mexico and Brazil, to an ETF that predominantly follows cannabis companies.
[...] According to a Securities and Exchange Commission filing, the switch to a cannabis-based index will occur on Dec. 26, so there's still a few weeks to go before investors will have an ETF that truly tracks marijuana stocks.
What is an ETF? "An ETF, or exchange-traded fund, is a marketable security that tracks an index, a commodity, bonds, or a basket of assets like an index fund. Unlike mutual funds, an ETF trades like a common stock on a stock exchange. ETFs experience price changes throughout the day as they are bought and sold. ETFs typically have higher daily liquidity and lower fees than mutual fund shares, making them an attractive alternative for individual investors."
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/etf.asp
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday November 25 2017, @06:22AM (6 children)
Welcome to democracy. The freedom to decide means the freedom to decide badly. At least, punishing people after they hurt someone makes more sense.
I have a better suggestion. Freedom of speech is more important than anything you've mentioned yet. So let's not do that instead. I'm particularly opposed to the removal of branding and such. That's an important quality cue to customers in addition to being the primary manifestation of speech of the business.
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Saturday November 25 2017, @07:55AM (4 children)
SCOTUS has held that different kinds of speech have different levels of first amendment protection.
Restrictions on protected speech require "strict scrutiny" by the courts. Different kinds of speech are given different kinds of scrutiny. There is also "compelling interest".
IIRC correctly, commercial speech can be restricted if there is a compelling interest. I expect that's why cigarette ads and packs bear warning labels. It's not like the tobacco companies don't know from lawyers.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 25 2017, @11:45AM
> Restrictions on protected speech require "strict scrutiny" by the courts. Different kinds of speech are given different kinds of scrutiny. There is also "compelling interest".
Indeed. Those who don't believe this should put a chapter from a Game of Thrones book on their site and then try and free-speech their way out of the resulting billion-dollar fine...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday November 25 2017, @02:35PM (2 children)
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Saturday November 25 2017, @09:10PM (1 child)
I expect that the state could argue that it has a compelling interest in discouraging smoking by eliminating brands.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday November 25 2017, @10:05PM
Let us remember that what is arguable is far greater than what makes sense or is legal for that matter. The state could argue, for example, that it doesn't have a compelling interest in discouraging smoking.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 25 2017, @07:59PM
The supreme court decision that granted partial personhood to businesses was a disaster. Businesses get the upsides, but they face few of the downsides. They don't register for the draft. They don't risk execution for their crimes. Businesses are fundamentally not people and are not deserving of rights like free speech, yet here we are.
The "important quality cue" is what needs to be wiped out. Products that don't meet a minimum standard can be subject to recall or even class action lawsuits. That supposed "important quality cue" is what allows people to be susceptible to advertising. Most often there is no real quality issue at stake; it's all just fictional nonsense created by a marketing department and their ad agency.
Heck, it's even trouble for non-harmful products. We are constantly being spammed, even in the physical world. The average business doesn't even benefit; they must participate in the arms race because everybody else is doing so.